Closing Poverty-Based Excellence Gaps: Conceptual, Measurement, and Educational Issues

Abstract

The number of economically vulnerable students in the United States is large and growing. In this article, we examine incomebased excellence gaps and describe recent controversies in the definition and measurement of poverty, with an eye toward their application to gifted education and meeting the needs of talented, economically vulnerable students. Regardless of how poverty is conceptualized, evidence suggests that U.S. childhood poverty rates are indeed high, both in absolute terms and relative to other countries, and that income-related achievement disparities are similarly large. Recommendations are included for interventions to close persistent poverty excellence gaps, including frontloading, broadened understanding of opportunity, universal screening using local norms, improved educator preparation and support, state K-12 accountability systems that reward schools for closing excellence gaps, widespread use of ability grouping, and selective use of psychosocial interventions at the college level.

Working toward equitable gifted programming: The school psychologist's role

“…The findings of Siegle et al (2015) indicated that students who are White are consistently overidentified when compared to CLED students, regardless of academic factors. These findings contribute to a large body of research demonstrating the persistent disparity in the identification rates of CLED students (Harris et al, 2009; McBee, 2006; Plucker & Peters, 2018). A significant driver of this disparity is the process by which students are referred for gifted services.…”

“…Research suggests that race and ethnicity inform the expectations of preservice and in‐service teachers who lack gifted‐specific training (Carman, 2011). The disproportionate nomination of White students for gifted identification (Harris et al, 2009; McBee, 2006; Plucker & Peters, 2018; Siegle et al, 2015) mirrors preservice teachers’ stereotypic expectations of giftedness (Carman, 2011). Several studies exploring preservice teachers’ preconceptions of gifted students indicate that stereotypic thinking and misinformation largely informs beliefs and expectations (Bain et al, 2007; Berman et al, 2012; Carman, 2011, Siegle et al, 2010; Speirs Neumeister et al, 2007).…”

“…Recent research in the field of gifted education indicates that though some progress toward the equitable representation of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) students in gifted programming has been made, gaps in access and achievement persist (Plucker & Peters, 2018). Beyond the deeply entrenched societal disparities that reinforce and perpetuate educational inequality, researchers have noted that biases in identification practices contribute to the underrepresentation of CLED students in gifted programs (Dalia & Agne, 2012; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; Harris, Plucker, Rapp, & Martínez, 2009; McBee, 2006).…”

Quantifying and Exploring Elementary School Excellence Gaps Across Schools and Time

“…Bassok et al hypothesize that low-income students may benefit more from the increased resources and intellectual engagement, but Kalil, Ziol-Guest, Ryan, and Markowitz (2016) found evidence that the across-the-board increases in enriched early childhood experiences lead to growing achievement gaps as upper-income students benefit more than lower-income students. Plucker and Peters (2018), in an examination of research on poverty-based excellence gaps, noted that many of the associations mentioned above between socioeconomic factors and proficiency-based achievement gaps probably apply to advanced achievement. However, they also noted that little empirical evidence has been provided to determine the degree to which these other studies apply to excellence gaps.…”

The Potential Promises and Pitfalls of Using Local Norms for Gifted Identification

“…This could be due to the use of strict cut off scores in combination with unfair norming procedures which do not take student context into account. A few scholars have suggested the use of school-based norming procedures as a method to introduce more economically disadvantaged students to appropriately challenging curricula and help prepare them for rigorous secondary coursework (Lohman, 2005;Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2018;Peters & Engerrand, 2016;Peters & Gentry, 2012;Plucker & Peters, 2018). As will be discussed in the following section, not only do student level variables negatively impact academic achievement for children living in poverty, but school and neighborhood variables can also promote low level of academic achievement.…”